|
|
|
|
|
|
by closeparen
3230 days ago
|
|
|
The point is that you aren't more fortunate with a nominally higher salary if your baseline (not luxury) costs consume it all. I'm doing about the same as anyone else who can barely afford to rent a studio and can't afford to have a car or travel. Someone with a third of my salary gets a house, a car, and more disposable income which goes further. The one area where I'm really blowing them out of the water is my $5/mo health insurance that makes all care effectively free. That's a function of the company, though, not the salary. Our much lower paid, lower skilled workers in satellite offices get the same benefits package. |
|
|
The point I'm trying to make is that, thanks in a large part of very some "boom" you and I riding on, a lot of people not only can't afford to live in SF (or other pricier parts of the Bay Area) with a car and travel money -- nowadays, they can't afford to live there at all. Whereas 20 years ago, while it was never easy to make it in the Bay Area -- at least theoretically they could, at their skill and education level.
So while $120k may seem like chump change to you, it'd be a godsend to them. They may still not be able to travel, and they may have to cut back in a whole lot of other areas -- but at least they'd be getting by.
Which is again, the real "game" for most people.